Posts by MikeSutton:

Reports are coming in that the Easter Bunnie has not finished its business today.

Mrs Smithwick of Colchester Gardens, in the village of Bunny near Nottingham, England, found him panting in her living room at 3am. Para veterinarians are now at the scene. We will keep you updated as more news comes in.

– By Mike Sutton –

A recent review in the Guardian newspaper of the historian A.N. Wilson’s book on Charles Darwin points out – quite correctly – many of Wilson’s mistakes and his failure to understand what the process of natural selection is. The book review is written by Victorian history expert Kathryn Hughes. However, waxing lyrical in credulous regurgitation of the romance and lies about Darwin’s supposed good nature and original genius, she uses the cliched example of Darwin’s supposed observations of a tangled bank in nature as supposed evidence of his originality. Hughes writes:

‘His most famous motif, the one that everyone remembers because it leaps off the page with such unforced joy, is that of the tangled bank. Based on his daily observations of a stretch of land near his home, Darwin describes a buzzing ecosystem that is home to plants, birds and insects “all dependent on each other”. Here, he implies, is a microcosm for how we too might imagine our lives.’

But, once again, this is just another example of Darwin replicating Patrick Matthew’s (1831) original theory and its supporting examples, explanatory analogies of difference and terminology.

I could add a wealth of examples of how many of Matthew’s prior-published ideas, original terminology, and confirmatory evidence were replicated by Darwin. Those examples are provided in my book “Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s greatest secret” but – given the tangled bank example used in the Guardian review one should look at what the statistical geneticist Dr Mike Weale tells us about Professor Donald Forsdyke’s observations of Darwin’s tangled bank text and its similarities to an evidentiary example provided by Patrick Matthew almost three decades earlier. The text below is taken from the comments section of Weal’s website “The Patrick Matthew Project” and are addressed to me:

“Mike, were you aware of the following interesting similarity between a famous passage of Darwin’s, and something that Matthew wrote in NTA? I thank Donald Forsdyke for pointing out the Matthew quote (see the end of his last video in his educational video series (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL59A9C65FB0DCED9E).

The Darwin quote, from the last paragraph of “On the Origin of Species”, is: “It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us.”

The Matthew quote, from pp.229-30 of NTA, is: “Look at the broken mound, with its old picturesque trees and tangled bushes; there is the ancient root where the throstle had its nestlings, which are now at large on the leafy boughs, and are tuning their yet unformed notes to melody. Now every twig has raised its new column of foliage to the sun; and branch, and root, and stone, embellished all over in the richest variety of cryptogamic beauty, swarm of insect life.”

The scene is used differently (to contemplate Nature’s laws by Darwin, to contrast beautiful Nature with boring manicured parks by Matthew), but the similarity of the picture is striking.”

NOTE: NTA is an acronym for Matthew’s book ‘On Naval Timber and Arboriculture.’

When will historians face the concrete fully evidenced truth and choose it over the romance and lies about Charles Darwin, which they have been hoodwinked to believe in?The most telling question is this: ‘Just how many supposed multiple coincidences of this kind are required in the story of Matthew and Darwin to convince scientists and historians that Darwin more likely than not plagiarised Matthew’s prior published discovery of evolution by natural selection, and in doing so committed the world’s greatest science fraud?’ My book is jam packed with them. Jam-packed with independently verifiable evidence of Darwin’s lies and Matthew’s influence on other naturalists known to Darwin and Wallace and his influence on their greatest influencers and their influencer’s influencers before either Darwin or Wallace penned a word on the topic of evolution. How can this be so? Because it is newly discovered those naturalists actually cited Matthew’s book and original ideas long before Darwin and Wallace replicated them. Andl Matthew’s work was cited by naturalists long before Darwin excused his and Wallace’s failure to cite Matthew by lying that no naturalist had read Matthew’s work. It was a lie because Matthew had twice prior informed Darwin that the exact opposite was true.

Darwin, the patron saint of atheists in fact kept the notion of a supernatural being in several editions of his Origin of Species. Read the whole context of his “tangled bank” job from that book and you will see this fact:

Now, by way of contrast, see how Matthew (1831) , the originator of the theory Darwin and Wallace stole, had the courage – years earlier – to commit heresy by mocking such an unscientific superstitious notion:

As I fully reveal in my book Nullius , it was for such reason, as Matthew explained to Darwin in the pages of the Gardeners’ Chronicle of 1860, that his work was banned by libraries and renowned university academics feared to repeat his ideas for fear of pillory punishment. But you won’t read those facts in any ignorant Darwin bashing book penned by a born again creationist, nor in any penned by a credulous and biased, cherry-picking, Darwin worshipper.

Comments Off on Charles Darwin’s Tangled Bank Job: Just More Evidence of his Science Fraud by Plagiary

– By Mike Sutton –

Bullshit kills? Realy? “Nullius in Verba” Show me the Evidence!

Last week in London, I seriously offended my hosts by insisting that the pink beef burger they served my daughter from their BBQ was quite possibly not safe for her or anyone else to eat. The juicy fat and perfectly charred burger was made from the finest ground steak from their local trusted butcher, and so they insisted it was perfectly safe to eat. Safe, because it is safe to eat a rare steak. After a heated discussion (pun intended) they finally, grudgingly, accepted that I was right.

I was right to tell them that not only are pink burgers unsafe (unless you first sear the outside of the steak before grinding it up), they are particularly unsafe for children and should never be served to them. Why is this a fact? Because the carcass of a slaughtered bull is often covered in its faeces, or that of other bulls (literally bullshit), and so it can get onto the meat. Bullshit contains E. coli, which is a lethal bacteria if ingested by humans.

Pink burgers might be safe if the internal pink bit has reached 160 degrees throughout in the cooking process, but it’s very hard for anyone to prove to you that it has. For all you know they made a mistake or they are “bullshitting” in the philosophical sense described by Harry H. Frankfurt. Where is the verifiable evidence, you need to ask.

In my opinion, when it comes to beef burgers, it is logically, rationally, better to stick with the veraciously potential life-saving guidance of the Hospitality Association on such things as pink beef.

The Bullshit Burger Parable

Later in the evening, my hosts turned the discussion to the difficulty I am having in getting the scientific and wider community to understand why it is important that we distinguish between truth and bullshit in the story of the discovery of evolution by natural selection.

People read my book, ‘Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s greatest secret‘ agree with the newly discovered bombshell evidence in it, but just can’t be bothered to spend so much as 5 minutes of their precious time to write a review on Amazon to help spread the truth. Why, because apparently “who cares about the truth of such matters?” I was further informed: “The trouble with you is that you care too much about the truth.”

The newly discovered facts in my book are as unwelcome as the guest who questions the food hygiene of the dish served them by a beloved and proud host. And yet, the veracious information I gave them might save the from killing someone they love.

Analogously, understanding the real, as opposed to mythical, process by which all ground-breaking scientific discoveries are made may in the future improve scientific knowledge about how to increase the rate of making new life-saving discoveries in science. If we don’t realise this we don’t realise the lesson of the Bullshit Burger Parable: namely, bullshit literally kills!

I hope my hosts come to realise that the importance of knowing how to distinguish bullshit from truth has lifesaving consequences. I don’t think they will be serving their own or anyone else’s children pink burgers ever again. I hope not anyway.

Do you have time to spread this important message to your fellow humans? Perhaps you don’t care enough about the truth? After all, as my extremely successful hosts told me: “Don’t you realise we are living in a post truth world?” They know that the big money in academia today, and other corporations (not their respective sources of income, by the way) is in selling palatable bullshit instead of unpalatable truth, just so long as it brings in money. And that is exactly what the Darwin deification industry does. It’s very profitable for universities that spread it. It’s very profitable for the publishers who publish it. And it’ very profitable for the authors and scientific associations that peddle it. Is money the “bottom” line (pun intended)?

– by Mike Sutton –

The world’s leading experts (including Charles Darwin, Alfred Wallace and Richard Dawkins) agree that Patrick Matthew, not Darwin or Wallace, originated the full theory of evolution by natural selection. However, Darwin convinced the world that neither he nor any other naturalist had read it before he and Wallace replicated it and claimed it as their own.

This book reveals with original discoveries of independently verifiable facts that Darwin told several lies about the scientific readership of Mathew’s book. Those independently verifiable facts, revealed in this book, prove it. Darwin’s lies concealed what he had twice been told in writing about the pre-1858 readership of Patrick Matthew’s prior-published theory. This discovery of Darwin’s proven sly dishonesty is powerfully added to the original bombshell discovery of the “New Data” that several highly influential naturalists, who Darwin and Wallace knew, in fact did read and then cite Matthew’s (1831) book containing his original breakthrough before Darwin and Wallace (1858) and Darwin (1859) replicated it without citing Matthew.

Nullius in Verba uncovers and explains the world’s most sensational case of plagiarising science fraud.

The Latin phrase “Nullius in Verba” has been the motto of Britain’s famous Royal Society – one of the oldest learned societies in the world – since the 17th century. It means that we should not accept that something is true based solely on anyone’s word regardless of his or her authority or stature. Sutton has brought his considerable expertise in understanding what causes crimes of intellectual and property theft to the area of scientific discovery theft. In this book, I have unearthed compelling new evidence of the Royal Society’s egregious failure to faithfully follow its own oldest and most fundamental tenet resulting in the greatest scientific fraud in history. Just as new DNA analysis is changing traditional forensic science, I have pioneered the use of newly available “big data” analysis of the literature to expose science fraud.

Contrary to what is said in an untold number of documentaries, books and scholarly works, the theory of macroevolution by natural selection was not independently discovered by Charles Darwin or by Alfred Wallace.

This behind-the-scenes portrayal will be fascinating to anyone who loves a true-life detective story, where in this case, the victim was the truth.

The Darwinite dogs may bark but the train rolls on

– Article by Mike Sutton –

With National Heritage Lottery funding, the Scots are building a Patrick Matthew heritage trail in Scotland. Moreover, in September there will be a week of Patrick Matthew celebrations held in Perthshire, where the great man lived.

Effectively, it is the facts about Patrick Matthew’s original discovery of macro evolution by natural selection that have received UK National Lottery Heritage funding: Latest news story on how his achievements are to be commemorated and celebrated can be read in the Scottish Courier Newspaper HERE

To their shame, our institutions of science have not yet displayed the professional and scientific integrity required to admit the facts prove they were all wrong about Matthew, Darwin and Wallace.

Comments Off on Scots finally take stand against discovery theft by English plagiarist Charles Darwin

Google Scholar’s Citation Index H-index score was mentioned with reverence at a recent meeting in a British University. The speaker was explaining how universities ranked the relevant importance of academics and the impact of their work. I was intrigued to hear the presenter refer to this measure as an important determinant. The reason I was surprised is because he used one of my friends as an example of a top scholar with major impact according to the Google’s h-index.

For reasons that will shortly become obvious, I won’t name the presenter, the university involved or the name of my friend. Suffice it to say my friend is a very well known professor and that his Google Citations H-index score is above 90. If you are unfamiliar with the h-index that will be completely meaningless. For the benefit of those who don’t know about it Professor Andre Spicer explains:

‘To put it in a slightly more simple way – you give an H-index to someone on the basis of the number of papers (H) that have been cited at least H times. For instance, according to Google Scholar, I have an H-index of 28. This is because I have 28 papers that are cited at least 28 times by other research papers. What this means is that a scientist is rewarded for having a range of papers with good levels of citations rather than one or two outliers with very high citations.’

According to the expert London School of Economics “Impact Blog” HERE, as can be seen by its tables below, on average, UK professors in the social sciences have an h-score of 4.97. Specifically, among UK professors of Sociology the average h-score is 3,67.

My own h-score is 12, and so I’m happy to see I’m way above average as a Reader in Criminology and Sociology HERE.

So what?

What concerns me about the h-score being used as a determinant of an individual’s success and academic impact is that it is totally vulnerable to manipulation by ambitious manipulative academics who are more concerned with playing the game of climbing the greasy pole of academia than actually making a genuine impact on knowledge anywhere. By way of example, my anonymous friend told me he has been playing this game for over three decades. In effect, he has been citing his own work within his other own work as many times as he can get away with it and with incredible regularity. Moreover he has been doing so in journals that are not even peer reviewed. That means that by far the majority of the citations that make up his hugely impressive h-score of over 90 are from his own citations of himself. That means his impressive impact is only impressive on himself with his own ideas, or the ideas of others he is recycling. Obviously his academic impact has also affected the brains of those who think his impressive h-score score means anything more than that.

To prove how this works let’s conduct an experiment here on The Daily Journalist.

As we have seen, my current h-score today (26th November 2016) is 12. But if you look atmy citations page you can see that two more citations for my non-peer reviewed primary research paper: ‘ How Prolific Thieves Sell Stolen Goods: Describing, Understanding and Tackling the Local Markets in Mansfield and Nottingham. A Market Reduction Approach Study’ will mean it will then have been cited 13 times. Once that happens my h-score will go up to 13, because I will then have 13 publications, out of all my other publication, that have each been cited a minimum of 13 times.

So to demonstrate with hard data exactly how easy and fast it is to corrupt any useful impact measure the h-index may have I am going to now cite that very minor and non-peer reviewed paper in two non-peer reviewed minor publications. First, I’m going to cite it here. OK here goes:

Simultaneously, I am going to dual publish this post on Best Thinking Website and as a comment on the E-Skeptic Magazine. If, by conducting this experiment, I personally drive my own h-score up from 12 to 13 – which I am almost certain I will – an update will follow within the next few weeks.

– by Mike Sutton –

The term “smoking gun” is generally held to mean an item of of incontrovertible incriminating evidence. My 19th edition of Brewer’s Phrase and Fable (2012. p.1253) explains:

‘The phrase acquired a particularly apt association with the widely diverging views, before, during and after the invasion of Iraq in 2003 about whether Saddam Hussain still possessed WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. Their discovery would have been hailed by the finders as a smoking gun.’

At the time of writing, Wikipedia is once again wrong in its etymology, this time to claim that the term ‘smoking gun’ derives from an 1893 Sherlock Holmes story.

Anyway, better than mere ‘smoking gun’ incriminating evidence of Wikipedia’s mistake exists, because it is 100 per cent proven to have been used in published print at least as early as 1878 (Appleton’s Journal. p. 17):

‘Two men approached, the younger with a smoking gun:

“So it’s you, is it?” said she as he came up.

“It is I” said he with a smile.

“Well I think you’ve got very little to do to go round shootin’ fleckers. This one in particular. I was just gettin’ used to him.”

On Smoking Gun Evidence in the story of who really did read Patrick Matthew’s prior published origination of the hypothesis of natural selection.

Darwin and Wallace (1858) and Darwin (1859) replicated Matthew’s (1831) origination of macroevolution of natural selection. They failed to cite Matthew, and they claimed to have arrived at Matthew’s prior-published bombshell concept independently of Matthew. Darwin and Wallace excused themselves for doing so by claiming (as a proven lie in Darwin’s case) that Matthew’s ideas were unread by any naturalist / anyone at all before 1860. In reality, as opposed to the credulous zombie-hoard mynah birding of Darwin’s lies (e.g. de Beer 1962, Mayr, 1982), by Darwin’s acolytes, the Darwinists, Darwin’s and Wallace’s friends, associates, correspondents and facilitators and their influencers influencers, the naturalists Loudon, Chambers, Selby and Jameson all read and cited Matthew’s book pre 1858 (see Sutton 2014).

So what constitutes ‘smoking-gun’ evidence in this case? I would propose that there are three areas where the usefulness of the phrase needs to be examined.

Smoking gun evidence that Darwin or Wallace read the original ideas in Matthew’s (1831) book themselves or in some other way copied from it.

Smoking gun evidence that Darwin lied in 1860, and in 1861 (and in every edition of the ‘Origin of Species’ thereafter) when he claimed that no naturalist / no one at all read Matthew’s orignal ideas before 1858.

Smoking gun evidence

The ‘New Data’ discovered in 2014 and first published in Nullius in Verba provides better than mere smoking gun evidence for 2 and 3 above. We know other naturalists did read Matthew’s orignal ideas pre-1858, because they cited his 1831 book before that date and mentioned those original ideas. The 100 per cent proof of the matter exists in the print record of the 19th century published literature. And Darwin’s lies are proven because before he wrote them Matthew informed him in print in the Gardener’s Chronicle (1860), very clearly and forcefully, that at least two naturalists did read his ideas and that his book was banned by the public library of Perth in Scotland (see Sutton 2015 and also Sutton 2016). But, with regard to point 1, above, we have not discovered a letter to or from Darwin or Wallace, or a notebook or diary entry, anywhere, that indicates Darwin or Wallace read or were told about Matthew’s (1831) book before they replicated so much of Matthew’s orignal work. But the fact that much of Darwin’s and Wallace’s and the notebooks and correspondence of other 19th century naturalists is lost or destroyed means that absence of evidence in this regard cannot rationally be considered as evidence of absence it ever happened.

However, what we do have with regard to point 1 is solid proof that some form of pre-1858 Matthewian knowledge contamination of the minds of Wallace and Darwin could have happened via Loudon, Selby, Chambers, Jameson and others newly discovered to have read and cited Matthew’s (1831) book pre-1858.

And we know that knowledge contamination can take place in at least three main ways (seeSutton 2016):

Innocent Knowledge Contamination: The spread of original ideas in a prior-publication via (a) subsequent published sources on the topic, which failed to cite the Originator as their source, or (b) word of mouth and/or correspondence to the replicator by those who read the Originator’s work or communicated with others who did — understood its importance in whole or simply in part — but failed to tell the replicator about its existence.

Reckless or Negligent Knowledge Contamination: (a) The replicator reads the original publication, absorbs information such as original ideas and examples and terms, but forgets having read it — and never does remember. (b) The replicator reads the original publication and takes notes, but forgets the source of the notes. (c) The replicator is told about original ideas in a publication by someone — who understands their importance in whole or simply in part — who explains they come from a publication, but the replicator fails to ask the name of the author and title of the publication.

Deliberate Knowledge Contamination (science fraud): The replicator reads the original publication, or is told about its contents, takes notes, or is given notes, remembers this, but pretends otherwise.

Gunsmoke evidence

From the solid evidence from the correspondence and publication record of the 19th century (see Sutton 2104 for the fully cited proof of the following facts) we know that academics talk and share sources and ideas. We know that editors insist on changes and insertions to text and we know that Loudon edited two of Blyth’s influential articles – which influenced Darwin and Wallace. We know that Loudon was a friend of Lindley (William Hooker’s best friend, who was the father of Darwin’s best friend Joseph Hooker) and a correspondent of William Hooker. And we know that William Hooker was Wallace’s mentor and correspondent from as early as 1848 and that they met before Hooker wrote a letter of introduction for Wallace in 1848 so that he could set off specimen collecting for cash – some of which came his way from Hooker. We know that Selby edited Wallace’s Sarawak paper, was a friend of Darwin’s father and Darwin’s good friend and most frequent correspondent Jenyns. We know that Selby was a close associate of William Hooker’s circle and we know that Chambers met and corresponded with Darwin pre-1858. Moreover, we know that Jameson was a regular correspondent of William Hooker pre-1858. All this, if not “smoking gun” evidence, is certainly evidence of multiple whiffs of gunsmoke; a type of evidence classed as “circumstantial evidence”. In the story of Darwin, Matthew and Wallace there is an awful lot if it – and much more than is covered in this blog post (see Sutton 2014) This circumstantial evidence, combined with more than smoking-gun proof of Darwin’s lies, and proof that the original ideas in Matthew’s (1831) book were cited by Darwin’s and Wallace’s influencers and their influencer’s influencers pre-1858, completely punctures the ‘no naturalists read Matthew’s orignal ideas pre-1858’ and the ‘honest Darwin’ myth’ – upon which is founded the old paradigm of Darwin’s and Wallace’s supposed dual independent conceptions of Matthew’s prior-published hypothesis.

Conclusion

We do have two important items of better than smoking gun evidence of Matthew’s pre-1858 influence on Darwin’s and Wallace’s work on natural selection.

We 100 per cent know that the orignal ideas in Matthew’s (1831) book were read by Darwin’s and Wallace’s influencers and their influencer’s influencers before Darwin and Wallace replicated them. This is better than ‘smoking gun’ evidence, because it absolutely disproves the ‘no naturalist read Matthew pre-1859’ premise that underpins the old Darwinite paradigm of Darwin’s and Wallace’s dual independent conceptions of Matthew’s prr-published hypothesis.

We 100 per cent know Darwin lied when he claimed no naturalist /no one at all read Matthew’s prior-published ideas before he replicated them.This is also better than ‘smoking gun’ evidence, because it completely disproves the honest Darwin premise that also underpins the Darwinite paradigm of Darwin’s independent conception of Matthew’s prior-published hypothesis.

Due to our rational understanding of the concept and typologies of of ‘knowledge contamination’ we have a lot of smoking gun, evidence that those who read Matthew’s (1831) orignal ideas had many opportunities to influence Darwin and Wallace and influence their influencers with Matthew’s original ideas may years before 1858. This represents “gun smoke evidence” that such knowledge contamination took place.

We have no smoking gun evidence that Darwin and Wallace did copy Matthew’s orignal ideas or were knowledge contaminated by them pre-1858.

From this four-point analysis, it can be argued that insistence upon smoking-gun evidence to substantiate claims of Darwin’s and Wallace’s probable Matthewian ‘knowledge contamination’ is based upon a misunderstanding of the better than mere smoking gun paradigm busting facts of the New Data in this story and of the gun-smoke significance of the multiple examples of newly discovered clear routes for Matthewian knowledge contamination of the pre-1858 minds of Darwin and Wallace.

Please note: Wikipedia’s corrupt editors are not averse to altering its story-lines byplagiarising my orignal discoveries and passing them off as their own (as they did with my unique discovery of the origination of the term ‘moral panic’) – so their fallacious account of the origin of the term “smoking gun” will undoubtedly change at some point, but without citation to this blog post.

Comments Off on How useful is the concept of the smoking gun? What about lots of gun smoke alone?

– By Mike Sutton –

Interestingly, those who discover paradigm changing and independently verifiable new data are often portrayed by desperately biased scholars, with vested career and in-group establishment interests in the old but newly myth-punctured paradigm, as cranks. But, with painful irony, the real cranks are those who let their bias interfere with their critical reasoning.

Dr Arlin Stoltzfus, referring to discussions between Dr Mike Weale and I on Weale’s BlogsiteThe Patrick Matthew Project explains why Weale’s loyal ‘belief-based’ Darwinite bias cannot trump the fact-based uncomfortable – newly discovered – truth in the story of the history of discovery of natural selection.

‘Darwin, by repeating the idea that no naturalist read or noticed Matthew’s book, repeated a self-serving statement that he knew to be factually incorrect, because Matthew himself had pointed this out. These facts are not in dispute. Sutton describes these facts by saying it is “100% proved” that Darwin “lied”.

In the cited web site, the case made by author Mike Weale is entirely based on quibbling about “lied” and “100 % proved”, while bending over backward to give His Holiness Charles Darwin the benefit of the doubt. According to Weale, when His Infallible Holiness Charles Darwin says that “nobody read it”, we must interpret this as the kind of harmless exaggeration that occurs every day– of course His Holiness must have known that the book would have been read by *someone*, so obviously he wasn’t intending to be taken literally (*). To accuse his holiness of “lying” would be to impute deception, which cannot be proved “100 %” because it requires an inference of motives (according to Weale).

Thus, Weale’s case against Sutton rests on the same kind of scholarly double standard that we are now accustomed to seeing: (1) insisting on a literal interpretation of a rhetorically loaded version of Sutton’s argument, while Darwin gets off easy precisely because Weale *refuses to hold Darwin to a literal interpretation*, and (2) insisting that Sutton can’t rely on inferences or touch on the issue of intentions by invoking “lied”, while Weale is free to defend Darwin precisely by appeal to inferences about Darwin’s knowledge and motives (sentence above with *). ‘

Read the New Data that has so upset the brains of the biased Darwinite community in my latest peer reviewed science journal article on the topic Here

Alternatively, as proof of the simple concept explained in my paper, simply Google (using double speech quotes just as I do here) the term “on knowledge contamination”.

The way forward

Please do something (no matter how small) to support veracity in the war for veracity over claptrap in the story of the discovery of natural selection. Because Darwinites currently dominate the scientific community, but they are behaving like an authoritarian religious deification cult.

Modern advanced societies will be harmed by having an inaccurate history of scientific discovery, disseminated through the propagandising machinations of palpably biased salaried academics and other powerful establishment in-group members. Only a crank could not see that.

By Mike Sutton.

As soon as a rare and fortuitous opportunity come along, which needs to be capitalised upon to benefit from, we might make the mistake of believing it is nothing unusual and that if we fail to seize it another will soon follow. Whether it comes to the most intriguing dating opportunities, a great new career, or the chance to be part of something big, such big opportunities rarely come along twice for most of us. At least not in my experience.

Here now is a significant once in a lifetime opportunity for you. Would you want to know you were one of those people in at the start of a major paradigm change in the history of scientific discovery? If so, then thanks to the internet you can be. You too can comment on an important discussion thread that might well be the turning point towards veracity and away from mythmongery, lies and mere unevidenced, wishful thinking, beliefs in the history of discovery of natural selection. Let me explain.

The comments section of the “Sandwalk” Darwin deification blog , named after a path in Darwin’s garden at Downe House, at the village of Downe, near Bromley – and published by Professor Larry Moran of the the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto – contains arguments from scientists that might well mark the slow turning point needed for the scientific establishment to cease promoting 155 year old and more recent pseudo scholarly fact-denial, falsehoods, myths and lies in the history of discovery of natural selection.

At last, as we can see in this particular comments section, a few scientists are admitting that the New Data, about the pri-1858 readership of Matthew’s 1831 original ideas is right and significant and actually exists – and they are now telling others to read my published peer-reviewed articles (e.g. Sutton 2016 ) on the topic and to stop ignorantly dismissing what they have not even looked at. Biologist Dr Arlin Stoltzfus , of the University of Maryland, Institute for Bioscience and Biotechnology Research is one such scientist. He writes on the sandwalk blog (29th July 2016 ):

‘Ed, to someone who has read parts of what Sutton has written, your reply looks very foolish. Contrary to what you state, Darwin does not “cite Matthew as a source” of his thinking. Instead, Darwin admits that Matthew preceded him, but then claims that no naturalists paid attention, and he indirectly blames Matthew for this (by putting his theory in the appendix of an obscure mis-titled book on naval arboriculture). That is, Darwin continues to take credit for what he calls “my theory”, and simply writes himself a set of excuses for not attributing Matthew as the source, e.g., by referring to it as “Matthew’s principle of selection.”

Sutton gathers the evidence that Matthew’s book was not just read by naturalists, but (1) received multiple published reviews and (2) was cited by (3) naturalists in Darwin’s circle of acquaintances and influences. Loudon’s review actually mentions that Matthew’s book contained interesting ideas on the origin of species. To find out why naval arboriculture was so interesting to Brits, you’ll have to read Sutton, or just consider the basis of the British Empire in 1831.

*Clearly*, Matthew has priority by ordinary scholarly standards, and clearly Darwin misrepresented the situation by spinning a yarn about Matthew’s obscurity. Sutton points out that Darwin’s followers have uncritically repeated that yarn for 150 years.

The only remaining question is whether Darwin was actually influenced in some way, which might range from vague diffusion of ideas through a personal network, to stealing the ideas and trying to hide it.

Sutton offers textual evidence that Darwin was influenced by Matthew, and points out personal connections that may have been a conduit for this influence. I have not spent much time reviewing this evidence, but it is based on similarities of phrasing. There is no smoking gun.

However, now that Sutton has pulled back the curtain on this, it is no longer responsible in scholarly writing to assert that Darwin wasn’t influenced by Matthew, or even to assert that there is no evidence– there is circumstantial evidence, however weak. If you doubt the evidence then the appropriate way of saying it is “I’m not convinced by the evidence that Darwin was influenced by Matthew.”

But again, this only addresses the issue of borrowing. The issue of priority is already settled, in favor of Matthew.’

If you wish to see more details on this story for yourself – look at both sides of the argument – and choose which one to side with according to independently verifiable facts, instead of long parroted proven falsehoods, Click hereand post your comment. You can then tell your grandchildren about it.

Comments Off on Now you too can change the course of history of scientific discovery

– By Dr Mike Sutton –

Leading psychologist, professor Mark Griffith’s of Nottingham Trent University in England, weighs in on the hot topic of newly discovered data in the story of Charles Darwin’s (1858; 1859) replication of Patrick Matthew’s (1831) prior published hypothesis (see Sutton 2016).

“Over the last few years, I have read over a dozen of Sutton’s online articles about Darwin and Matthew, and I was also one of the first people to read Sutton’s book before it was published. Sutton’s work is meticulous, rigorous, and fully referenced. Most of his critics have never read (or simply don’t want to read) his book. Instead they appear to take potshots at his research and reputation without bothering to read the original source.”

On Griffiths’s blog – which has received over 4 million hits – the Sociologist Dr Andrew Wilson, of Nottingham Trent University supports Griffith’s conclusions:

“Now the truth is out of the bag it is only a matter of time before enough of it seeps into the public domain to make Matthew denial look as absurd as any other attempt to protect a precious but untenable position.”

– By Mike Sutton –

Possibly the most #ironic thing in the history of the world is also about iron. Just how ironic is that?

HealthWatch

I am most delighted that the esteemed HealthWatch organisation, which is an independent charity for science and integrity in medicine, invited me to write an article on the myth that was first bust here on BestThinking, and has since been read by over 50,000 people.

I am hoping now to spread the word further about the SPIDES supermyth, in the hope – and it is only hope – because we can only hope without further research into what works in nutritional attitude change that my attempts will not back-fire and make things worse – that the humour and the irony of it all will help people make informed nutritional choices about iron.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) on Iron

There has been a “state of denial” canny indifference amongst most of the World’s top Darwin scholars to the Supermyth busting “New Data” facts (e.g.Sutton 2016), which puncture the premise underpinning the old Darwinist paradigm of tri-independent discovery of Matthew’s prior-published original conception of macroevolution by natural selection.

Nullius in Verba

I wonder, now, will the leading Darwinist Professor Steve Jones (FRS) be “knowledge contaminated” on the topic of Supermyths and Charles Darwin – given that he is a notable patron of HealthWatch, which introduces the supermyth concept in its quarterly newsletter (newsletter 101) this month and given that ,along with Dr Mike Weale, last year revealing – most unfortunately for the veracious history of scientific discovery – just how little he and Weale understood – or cared to share with the public – about 100 per cent proven prior-readership of Patrick Matthew’s original conception of macroevolution by natural selection by Darwin’s and Wallace’s associates, influencers and their influencer’s influencers and Darwin’s 100 per cent proven lies on that very topic (see Sutton 2014 for the Darwin and Wallace Immaculate Conception Supermyth bust).

Wikipedia needs investigation by the FBI. Because its owners claim it is an objective encyclopaedia edited by the general public. On those grounds it seeks sponsorship via the public for donations to keep it going. In reality it is secretly earning money on a “fact deleting paid-to-lobby” basis.

This corporate activity stinks to high heaven of corruption, fraud and organised crime. Wikipedia editors are gaining a pecuniary advantage by deception. I am prepared to testify!

Comments Off on Criminologist Calls For the FBI to Investgate Wikipedia

– By Mike Sutton –

So for the history of science record, the known public facts of the matter are simply this

The 100 per cent proven facts in my peer reviewed paper, are published in a Polish science journal Filozoficzne Aspekty Genezy, Philosophical Aspects of Origin. Moreover, the esteemed Darwinist Senior Lecturer on the history of science, Dr John van Wyhe, who has been a member of the Polish science journal’s expert advisory team since at least 2014, was on the journal’s academic expert advisory board before, at the time this paper was submitted, during its peer review process, and also immediately after it was published. Soon after publication, for some reason unknown to me, Dr van Wyhe resigned that position.

In light of the “New Facts”, these are interesting times to be a Darwin scholar.

Comments Off on Interestingly or not, As the Case May Be, Expert Darwin Advisor Resigns Following New Revelations of Darwin’s Proven Lies

Regardless of the ironically high and arguably always most obvious likelihood that the story behind it was bunkum, because no one at the time thought to confirm with Sutton the veracity of the story that is source of his mythical line, Sutton’s Law is still logically and practicably useful in many fields – such as clinical medicine, computer program debugging and mechanical problem diagnosis.

I applied Sutton’s Law when studying Charles Darwin’s and Alfred Wallace’s (1858, 1859 and 1860) claims to have each discovered the complex theory of macroevolution by natural selection, and the original associated artificial versus natural selection explanatory analogy of differences, independently of one another and independently of Patrick Matthew’s (1831) prior publication.

In considering the obvious, I was most certainly unable to disconfirm the high likelihood of some kind of significant pre-1858 Matthewian knowledge contamination of the brains of both Darwin and Wallace. In fact, my research confirmed the most obvious – with newly discovered hard facts – that Darwin’s and Wallace’s friends, influencers and facilitators, and their influencer’s influencers, read and cited Matthew’s book and the ideas in it before Darwin and Wallace replicated them. Consequently, it is far more likely than not, that this fact explains their replications of Matthew’s original ideas.

You can read the latest peer reviewed evidence to support the conclusion that Darwin and Wallace did not discover natural selection independently of its originator: Here.

– A guest article presented by Mike Sutton –

The following article is written by Emilio Cervantes (IRNASA-CSIC. Salamanca Spain)

I was asked to assist in getting this information into the public domain so that it might be discussed by a wider audience. Doing so does not mean that I agree in any way whatsoever with its content, views or conclusions. Dr Mike Sutton

Emilio Cervantes

The following is an updated version of an article Published in the blog Biologia y Pensamiento in March 9, 2009.

The idea then proposed was that Wikipedia is the Newspeak Dictionary, predicted by Orwell in his novel 1984. This was supported by the facts related in 2009, and it is now confirmed by the changes done in the Wikipedia articles mentioned here (see at the end).

Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. Already, in the Eleventh Edition, we’re not far from that point. But the process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there’s no reason or excuse for committing thoughtcrime. It’s merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won’t be any need even for that. The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect. Newspeak is Ingsoc and Ingsoc is Newspeak,’ he added with a sort of mystical satisfaction. ‘Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?

Orwell, 1984.

Might Wikipedia, the free and democratic encyclopedia, respond to an interest of indoctrination or manipulation? , could it include, between so much information, some with tendentious and manipulative intention in key questions? May we be confronting a wolf dressed with the skin of a lamb?

It seems that the answer to all these questions is going to be yes. That the popular and democratic encyclopaedia might contain here and there, between its entries, some written, corrected and supported, with the main intention of indoctrinating to the masses as propheticallly described Orwell in his novel 1984.

From some time now we find certain similarity between Wikipedia and Orwell’s Newspeak Dictionary. Now and then, an example comes to confirm it, but before entering in the matter, let’s see some fingerprints of newspeak in so popular encyclopaedia. Months ago we saw that the Wikipedia correctors, which are Darwinians, made a censorship to non-Darwinian interpretations of evolution. In the discussion of the article entitled “Biological evolution” this censorship was openly denounced by one of the participants:

(The hope that Wiki could be a source of neutral and plural information has been thrown to the bin. The hope that Internet could be a way of democratization of knowledge is being murdered in this site.)

Another example came when I wanted to include an article commenting on the book of Fernando Vallejo entitled La TautologíaDarwinista “The Darwinian Tautology” and Varano (big lizard) erased it, indicating that the comment of the book was a literary critique.

Also it was surprising to verify then that the same authors who write the articles of Biological Evolution in Spanish are those writing on Creationism (in Spanish, creacionismo), supporting the thesis that Creationism is a Darwinian invention. In fact, the word Creationism first appears in Darwin and Huxley’s correspondence. But… Your attention please!: Faith or religion are not Darwinian inventions, … Creationism is. It departs from the basis that religious beliefs, opinions, or ideas can, in some moment, be confronted with scientific points of view. Something that was already discarded in the times of Galileo.

But there are more examples of manipulative zeal in Wikipedia. For example in the Spanish entry dedicated to Antidarwinism (2009).

The anonymous author, participant in the draft of other entries in Spanish related to education for the citizenship, the laic left, the European citizenship, the separation between Church and State, the Spanish exile in Mexico or the historical memory and others, almost all of them very far away from Science fields, dares he himself alone with Antidarwinism, a concept that would need a solid scientific formation not guaranteed in this author.
This way, the entry offers a notably antiscientific description. To such an end, once Antidarwinism was defined as the position opposite to Darwinism and therefore contrary to the general postulates of the theory of evolution by natural selection; then, instead of indicate which are such postulates and whether or not, they may admit perfectly opposite positions, we enter difficult areas. We continue reading:

The antidarwinian positions are not uniform (it is possible to be an evolutionist but not Darwinist) and they are supported by diverse principles of religion, intelligent design, Creationism, skepticism, magics, paranormal, witchcraft, ufology and other pseudosciences of supernatural character

It is fascinating how fast Darwinian writers find a connexion between antidarwinism and witchcraft, ufology and other pseudosciences of supernatural character. It makes think that they are really worried by their own position close to all these aspects and situated in the middle of the pseudoscience.

But to these confusion we answered, when all this was still visible in 2009:

Not, anonymous author, you are wrong. The only lawful antidarwinism consists of a scientific position that denounces the deficiencies of the Darwinian postulates.

The scientific uselessness of those postulates that you did not want to indicate before but that anyone can read in Wikipedia’s corresponding entry consists in that they are full of mistakes. Therefore, please copy if you want to contribute to make this entry more precise:

Antidarwinism like a fully scientific position rests on two firm fundaments:

1- The poor scientific basis of the Darwinian postulates (Natural selection is a tautology).

2- The historical analysis of contemporary science discovers the predominance of social and economic interests on the scientific presentations and defense of Darwinism.

Everything else is in exceeds. Only serves to create confusion.

It ends here the article published in 2009. Now the entry dedicated to Antidarwinism has disappeared from Spanish Wikipedia and the reader is directed to Historia de las objeciones y críticas a la teoría de la evolución (History of the objections and critics to the evolutionary theory) where some of the Darwinist topics can be read again. For a page dedicated to objections and critics to the evolutionary theory it is surprising to find three illustrations: a phylogenetic tree and two images of Darwin. This demonstrating that even when we don’t want to read about Darwin we are obliged to, or… Do you remember?:

Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller…

…‘Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?

Comments Off on Is Wikipedia Orwell’s 1984 Newspeak Dictionary?: A proof in the Spanish entry dedicated to Antidarwinism in 2009 and the evolution of this concept

– By Mike Sutton –

Readers of my research might know I have a rather long-term issue with the fact that a number of Wikipedia editors are actively and “tautologically” engaged in their own pseudo-scholarly personal agenda bias-driven campaigns to delete significant facts that do not fit those personal fact-deleting agendas. (e.g here and :here and here). And, best of the lot:Here.

A video caught in video

This video shows us one of these petty martinet-types being consensually caught in a video net of his own making. An aggrieved maker of his own YouTube video, which captures this Wikipedia editor’s video that depicts the “editor’s” apparently weirdly self-satisfied celebration of his undereducated, proudly inexpert, arrogant and illogical ne’erdowell self, is rightfully aggrieved in my opinion. The Wikipedia editor also reveals in his video that Wikipedia is effectively a weird cult with a labyrinthine set of unintuitive rules, which include – apparently – denying Americans their constitutional rights to assert their rights to seek redress when those rights are being denied.

Stick with the whole thing. You might need a stiff drink to endure it to the bitter end, but I think it is well worth watching and thinking about – for the next time you wonder why someone weirdly deleted your own significant and evidence-based veracious entry on a Wikipedia page.

WARNING: In my opinion, this video of a Wikipedia, daft as a brush, woolly-headed, crack-pot who can’t think straight, editor, is toe-curlingly excruciating. Click to view it Here

The same aggrieved YouTube video maker “Gary” has more fact-based evidence ofWikipediapropaganda for us. WARNING: Gary asserts his constitutional right to use the obscene four letter female genitalia “C” word in his video. My link to it does not represent approval of such language to abuse others. In fact, my opinion is that I greatly disapprove of such language being used in such a way. But, just like Gary, I hate brute censorship based on mere opinions. So here it is. Right: Here

If you wish to see Gary’s website that Wikipedia editors deleted the Wikipedia link to. It is here.

Comments Off on Follow the Data: Wikipedia is being run by a weird cult called “Wikipedia Editors”

Dempster (1985) reasoned with a multitude of his own evidence that Patrick Matthew should be hailed as the true discoverer of natural selection, simply because he most certainly did more than merely enunciate it, he worked it out and published it in detail as a complex and fully comprehensive law of nature. Moreover, Matthew got it right and Darwin wrong when it came to comprehending the impact of geological disasters on species extinction and emergence. Yet, from the third edition of the Origin onwards, Darwin (1861), a follower of Lyell’s erroneous uniformitarianism, jumped at the chance to denigrate Matthew by slyly inferring that he was a (then to be fashionably ridiculed) catastrophist. The following is from Darwin’s 1861 Third Edition of the Origin of Species (p. xv):

The differences of Mr. Matthew’s view from mine are not of much importance: he seems to consider that the world was nearly depopulated at successive periods, and then re stocked; and he gives, as an alternative, that new forms may be generated “without the presence of any mould or germ of former aggregates,” I am not sure that I understand some passages; but it seems that he attributes much influence to the direct action of the conditions of life. He clearly saw however the full force of the principle of natural selection.’

Dempster (1996) made this part of Darwin’s cleverly subtle muck slinging injustice abundantly clear, but if you can find a Darwinist, or any other biologist, admitting as much and citing Dempster then you’ve found one more than I have. In effect, Darwin was signifying Matthew as among all the outdated believers in the miracle of Noah’s Ark! And yet Matthew believed in no such thing. Matthew simply explained natural selection in terms of what is today called ‘Punctuated Equilibrium’ – which is, then, essentially Matthew’s discovery. Punctuated Equilibrium is accepted science today. However, Dempster (1995;2005) noted that its Darwinist purveyors sought to keep the originator of that theory buried in footnote oblivion. Rampino (2011) explains some of the detail.

Dempster wrote that there is no need to accuse Darwin of plagiarising the work of Patrick Matthew because it is already well established that he acted badly in not citing his influencers in the first edition and other editions of the Origin of Species (Dempster, 1983 p. 64):

‘Patrick Matthew and Robert Chambers carried out their great tasks single- handed. Without the help on the one hand of his great wealth and on the other of Hooker, Lyell, Lubbock, Blyth, Wallace and many others, it is doubtful whether Darwin, single-handed, could have avoided making a botch of his theory or even whether he could have, had the Origin published. Even so, in spite of all the outside help, he retreated more and more towards Lamarckism.

There is no need to charge Darwin with plagiarism. His scholarship and integrity were at fault in not providing all his references in the Origin: he had after 1859 another twenty years in which to do so. What one can say is that denigration of Patrick Matthew was unwarrantable and inexcusable.’

Darwinist muck-slinging began after Darwin capitulated to Matthew in the Gardener’s Chronicle of 1860

The image below was kindly sent to me by Jim Dempster’s daughter Soula Dempster. The red handwriting is her father’s. He annotated a copy of the historical sketch in Darwin’s Origin of Species, Dempster’s copy of the sketch is from the 1872 edition but its the same as that fistpubihed in 1861 from the third edition of the Origin onwards:

Dempster’s notes on Darwin’s sly Deceptions in the Origin of Species

Note where Dempster writes “½ sentence missing!”. Dempster has spotted that Darwin slyly misled his readers that Matthew believed something, which the facts prove Matthew clearly did not. Note that Dempster writes: “Matthew rejects this in the missing part!“

Because Darwin slyy concealed the context and completeness of Matthew’s work, I respectfully disagree with Dempster’s view that there is no need to accuse of Darwin of plagiarism. I think that there most certainly is a need to directly name Darwin as a plagiariser, and to do so in no uncertain terms, because, by lying, wriggling, plagiarising science fraud – byglory theft necessity after 1860 (see Sutton 2016)- Darwin showed only a half a sentence of Matthew’s work in order to so deliberately mislead his readership into thinking Matthew simply believed that the population of life was somehow miraculously “re-stocked”.

What matthew actually wrote:

Page 383 of Matthew (1831) ‘On Naval Timber and Arboriculture’

Note – most importantly – Matthew’s entire first paragraph on page 383 of his book is one long sentence. The first eight words that darwin left out of his explanation of Matthew’s original conception of natural selection are crucial to Darwin’s devious dishonest portrayal of Matthew as believing only that some form of complex species creation occurred on Earth after a catastrophic extinction event.

Matthew wrote:

So what was the “above” that Darwin concealed in his dishonest portrayal? Amongst a great wealth of additional text, but immediately above page 383, – it is this:

Matthew (1831) p. 381

Readers should note also that Dempster’s red ink annotations note that it is very important how Matthew’s ideas are different to those of Darwin “Oh yes they are!” also that Dempster notes that it is untrue “Not true” that Matthew’s original conception of natural selection was contained in a book of an unrelated title and solely in the scattered pages of the book’s appendix. Those Darwinist myths are completely burst – with hard disconfirming evidence – in my 2014 book “Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s greatest secret“, which – in addition – contains a wealth of original and newly discovered hard and independently verifiable facts that overturn the old paradigm that no one known to Darwin or Wallace read Matthew’s original ideas before each replicated them, without citing Matthew – and then excused that unscholarly behaviour by claiming (fallaciously) – and by outright proven lying in Darwin’s case – that none read those ideas before 1860. My book is dedicated to Jim Dempster.

You can read more about the work and life of the pioneering surgeon and human organ transplant scientist Jim Dempster Here.

The 100 per cent proven facts in this peer reviewed paper, are published in a polish philosophy journal Filozoficzne Aspekty Genezy: Philosophical Aspects of Origin. Moreover, the esteemed Darwinist professor of the history of science, Dr John van Wyhe, is on the journal’s academic expert advisory board.

My peer-reviewed paper

(1) 100 per cent proves that the world’s leading Darwin Scholars – and others – were 100 per cent wrong to write that the original ideas in Matthew’s book went unread by biologists and anyone else before Darwin and Wallace replicated them. Because it is newly 100 per cent proven that – as opposed to the prior-Darwinist myth that none – seven other naturalists in fact did cite, in the published 19th century literature, Matthew’s book and the original ideas in it pre-1858.

(2) 100 per cent proves that after 1860 Darwin lied by writing the very opposite to what Matthew had already informed him about the readership of his book.

Illogical and irrational pseudo scholars might think that it is unscientific for me to write that it is 100 proven that something is true. But any making such a claim as to the unscientific nature of my claims are confusing two very distinctly different things. Quite rightly, it is not the language of scientists to write that a hypothesis is 100 per cent proven or not. However, no rational scientist would deny that it is 100 proven that the New Data – which is the published words inside newly re-discovered published 19th century books and journals – is 100 per cent proven to exist.

In the Carse of Gowrie Scotland

Last week I delivered the results of my latest research paper at the James Hutton Institute in Scotland. The Dundee Courier reported on the event.

‘English academic says Scots farmer could be true origin of Charles Darwin’s most famous theory’

I responded to Derry’s claims with a letter to the courier that included a link to the page on this blog where Mr Derry’s use of the foulest of foul language in published social media communications can be read. The Courier responded appropriately.

I was later compelled, in the public interest, to respond to Mr Derry’s and other allegations against my expert, independently, and anonymously, peer reviewed, science journal, published research findings by way of a professionally reviewed and moderated article on the Thinker Media Best Thinking Site. Here. (Sutton 2016).

Comments Off on Uncomfortable New Facts Discovered With Google Cause Upset

Mike Alexander is the first journalist I’ve encountered who actually admits it is a complex topic, which journalists need to get to grips with in order to get the “real facts” straight. He kept asking me (several emails between us and a long phone call) for loads of cast iron proof from the actual published 19th century publication record, and so I just kept on sending it. Now that’s old-school journalistic integrity. I hope Michael Alexander goes far. I expect he will.

Most Interestingly, Alexander informed me that the Dundee Courier swallowed up the old Dundee Advertiser. Notably, it was in the latter newspaper that published many of Matthew’s important letters in the 19th century.

Comments Off on Why the Dundee Courier is the ideal newspaper to print the truth about Patrick Matthew and Charles Darwin

– By Mike Sutton –

Building on the New Data first revealed in my Best Thinking book, Nullius in Verba and further ideas first formulated in a Best Thinking blog post in Jan 2015, my very latest peer reviewed journal article was published on the topic yesterday.

In this new article, in the philosophy of science journal: Philosophy Aspects of Origin, I prove, amongst many other things, that rather than prove his independent conception of Matthew’s original ideas and examples, Darwin’s private correspondence, notebooks and private essays all serve to incriminate him as a lying plagiarizing science fraudster by glory theft of Patrick Matthew’s prior published hypothesis of the “natural process of selection”.

I am presenting this paper on thursday 17th March 2016, next week, at the James Hutton Institute in Scotland. Details here.

My hammering conclusion – which is to be reported in the Scottish press next week – is that Scotland has been punterized by 155 years of English lies, fallacies and myths that underpin the current paradigm of Darwin’s and Wallace’s independent conceptions of Matthew’s prior-published hypothesis.

Scotland has an unrecognised science hero.

Matthew, like many influential and original thinking Scots, hailed from the fertile lands of the beautiful Carse of Gowrie.

Punterised by Darwin’s 100 per cent proven lies into believing Matthew is relatively insignificant in the story of the discovery of natural selection, the Scots demolished his manor house in the 1980s.

That act of unintentional cultural vandalism raised to the ground their opportunity to use it and its ancient orchards as a major heritage site for cultural and economic sustainability. However, Matthew’s monumental giant redwood trees remain in the area. Today, in the interests of economic and cultural sustainability, it is essential that Scotland places protection orders on these historic Matthew Trees.

Scots need to read the new data and weigh its significance for themselves.

Fiona Ross, chair of The Carse of Gowrie Sustainability Group which has organised next Thursday’s lecture informs Scotland that a dream of Matthew’s descendants would be to see his portrait on the back of a Scottish £10 note.

One day Scotland will have Patrick Matthew on the back of it’s £10 note.

Comments Off on Canny Failure of the English to Engage with the New Data Amounts to Anti-Scottish Discrimination in Science